Moreover, there is considerable optimism that juveniles can be held accountable, while managing with services and sanctions the risks they pose to others, and provide them with "room to reform " without extinguishing their lives. The sense of urgency surrounding the need to reform juvenile and criminal justice policies and practices with respect to the transitioning young offender group cannot be overstated. In some instances, this transition can have life or death implications. .
JUSTICE SYSTEM RESPONSES .
The Shift from Rehabilitative to Punitive Justice Policies .
During most of the 20th century, state sentencing policies were primarily offender-oriented and based on a rehabilitative model of individualized sentencing (Tonry, 2009; Warren, 2007). Beginning in the 1960s, the national crime rate sharply increased. At the same time, evaluations of correctional interventions during the rehabilitative period claimed that "nothing works " (Lipton, Martinson, & Wilks, 1975; Martinson, 1974) and cast a negative shadow over therapeutic criminal and juvenile justice policy and practice (Tonry, 2004; Garland, 2001) and a new "just deserts " philosophy emerged. These developments led the federal government and many states to turn to offense-based sentencing policies and to embrace more punitive measures. .
The swing from treatment to punishment also filtered down to the juvenile justice system (Feld, 1988; Howell, 2003b). Two compelling images in the 1990s helped foster policies to enhance punishment of juvenile offenders. First, a political scientist warned of a coming generation of juvenile "superpredators " (DiIulio, 1995a) who would become a "new breed " of cold-blooded murderers (DiIulio, 1995b). Second, DiIulio and Wilson predicted that a new "wave " of juvenile violence would occur approximately between 1995 and 2010 based on a projected increase in the under-18 population (DiIulio, 1996; Wilson, 1995).
